What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5496318 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s claim for compensation for damage to the flooring is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5496318?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5496318?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5496318?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14115648-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5496318 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s claim for compensation for damage to the flooring is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5496318?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5496318?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5496318?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14115648-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5 Reponui Court, Rototuna North, Hamilton 3210 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5496318 — Mould & damp

Order

The landlord’s claim for compensation for damage to the flooring is dismissed.

Reasons

Mrs Liang, for the landlord, and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] (tenant) both attended the hearing which was held as an in-person hearing. [The tenant/s] tenant/s] represented [The tenant/s] tenant/s].
The landlord has applied for compensation for damage to flooring and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s application included compensation for a number of other claims. The parties attended mediation and reached an agreement for all matters other than this claim. The matter was referred to the Tribunal following the mediation for a determination on this claim only. Consequently it is the only matter considered in this order.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to floor?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
Laminate plank flooring was installed into the kitchen, dining lounge areas and the hallway when the property was constructed 5 years ago. The landlord claims the tenants have caused damage to the kitchen floor.
There is a drain hole in the kitchen floor in front of the sink and dishwasher. The damage is adjacent to the drain area.
The landlord’s view is that the mat the tenant had over the drain and surrounding area has absorbed moisture from spills from the sink and dishwasher which has caused the mat to remain damp and affect the flooring. That is, that the tenant’s habit of placing mats on the floor meant water became trapped under the mats which caused the floor under the mat to be damp and become damaged.
The landlord also says the tenant used a wet mop to clean the floor which would have also would have affected the flooring, and that floors of this nature should be cleaned using little water so that they dry out quickly.
The landlord’s evidence includes that: •when the flooring was removed for inspection after the tenancy ended, moisture had accumulated between the planks and the floor material beneath the planks •the builder of the property and another independent builder inspected the damage and concluded the damage was caused by prolonged water exposure, rather than materials defects or poor installation. •the landlord’s insurance adjuster inspected the damage and determined that the damage resulted from gradual damage rather than one single sudden event. •the landlord does not believe the damage has been caused by material or installation defects •the property next door, built at the same time and also owned by the landlord does not have the same damage.
The landlord is unable to replace the damaged planks as they are no longer available and is seeking the cost of replacing all of the plank flooring ($5,491.25).
The tenant’s evidence includes: •she worked for Carpet Mill in the past and had knew not to use a wet mop, but a damp mop, and not to steam mop the floor. She acknowledged she had steam mopped the floor a couple of times before realising it was laminate planking and immediately changed to a damp mop. She dried the floor after each damp mop. •there was never a flood or a pool of water on the floor. Had there been, she believed damage would have been caused to other areas, and/or her rugs/floor cushions, as the floor is level, regardless that there is a drain. The tenant confirmed that she had also never directed water from cleaning the floor into the drain •the floor had been laid with gaps between some of the planks which meant the planks were not as tightly fitting as they should have been, and the planks did not go under the skirting boards as they should; •the laminate flooring was not 100% waterproof, yet a drain had been inserted into the flooring.
After considering all of the evidence I am not satisfied that the damage is beyond fair wear and tear and caused by the tenant carelessly or intentionally.
A floor in a kitchen needs to be sufficiently robust to withstand normal use, and that also means normal cleaning. For a smooth floor like the laminate planking in this premises, cleaning would normally be by mopping. The property has a drain in the floor by the sink and dishwasher. Even though the tenant says she has not directed water down the drain, the presence of the drain in itself would indicate to a tenant that they could do that.
In my view flooring in a kitchen needs to be waterproof, and the presence of the drain increases the need for any flooring in the kitchen to be 100% waterproof. That is not case here. Mr Chiu’s (Nova Flooring) suggested remedy is to remove the laminate planking and replace it with 100% waterproof SPC. He also states “the new planks [would] go under the skirting boards without any gaps”.
I accept the tenant’s evidence about how she has cleaned the floor, and that there has been no floods or excess water left on the surface as credible. The claim is dismissed as the landlord has not established the tenant has carelessly or intentionally caused the damage.

Order

The landlord’s claim for compensation for damage to the flooring is dismissed.

Reasons

Mrs Liang, for the landlord, and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] (tenant) both attended the hearing which was held as an in-person hearing. [The tenant/s] tenant/s] represented [The tenant/s] tenant/s].
The landlord has applied for compensation for damage to flooring and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s application included compensation for a number of other claims. The parties attended mediation and reached an agreement for all matters other than this claim. The matter was referred to the Tribunal following the mediation for a determination on this claim only. Consequently it is the only matter considered in this order.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to floor?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
Laminate plank flooring was installed into the kitchen, dining lounge areas and the hallway when the property was constructed 5 years ago. The landlord claims the tenants have caused damage to the kitchen floor.
There is a drain hole in the kitchen floor in front of the sink and dishwasher. The damage is adjacent to the drain area.
The landlord’s view is that the mat the tenant had over the drain and surrounding area has absorbed moisture from spills from the sink and dishwasher which has caused the mat to remain damp and affect the flooring. That is, that the tenant’s habit of placing mats on the floor meant water became trapped under the mats which caused the floor under the mat to be damp and become damaged.
The landlord also says the tenant used a wet mop to clean the floor which would have also would have affected the flooring, and that floors of this nature should be cleaned using little water so that they dry out quickly.
The landlord’s evidence includes that: •when the flooring was removed for inspection after the tenancy ended, moisture had accumulated between the planks and the floor material beneath the planks •the builder of the property and another independent builder inspected the damage and concluded the damage was caused by prolonged water exposure, rather than materials defects or poor installation. •the landlord’s insurance adjuster inspected the damage and determined that the damage resulted from gradual damage rather than one single sudden event. •the landlord does not believe the damage has been caused by material or installation defects •the property next door, built at the same time and also owned by the landlord does not have the same damage.
The landlord is unable to replace the damaged planks as they are no longer available and is seeking the cost of replacing all of the plank flooring ($5,491.25).
The tenant’s evidence includes: •she worked for Carpet Mill in the past and had knew not to use a wet mop, but a damp mop, and not to steam mop the floor. She acknowledged she had steam mopped the floor a couple of times before realising it was laminate planking and immediately changed to a damp mop. She dried the floor after each damp mop. •there was never a flood or a pool of water on the floor. Had there been, she believed damage would have been caused to other areas, and/or her rugs/floor cushions, as the floor is level, regardless that there is a drain. The tenant confirmed that she had also never directed water from cleaning the floor into the drain •the floor had been laid with gaps between some of the planks which meant the planks were not as tightly fitting as they should have been, and the planks did not go under the skirting boards as they should; •the laminate flooring was not 100% waterproof, yet a drain had been inserted into the flooring.
After considering all of the evidence I am not satisfied that the damage is beyond fair wear and tear and caused by the tenant carelessly or intentionally.
A floor in a kitchen needs to be sufficiently robust to withstand normal use, and that also means normal cleaning. For a smooth floor like the laminate planking in this premises, cleaning would normally be by mopping. The property has a drain in the floor by the sink and dishwasher. Even though the tenant says she has not directed water down the drain, the presence of the drain in itself would indicate to a tenant that they could do that.
In my view flooring in a kitchen needs to be waterproof, and the presence of the drain increases the need for any flooring in the kitchen to be 100% waterproof. That is not case here. Mr Chiu’s (Nova Flooring) suggested remedy is to remove the laminate planking and replace it with 100% waterproof SPC. He also states “the new planks [would] go under the skirting boards without any gaps”.
I accept the tenant’s evidence about how she has cleaned the floor, and that there has been no floods or excess water left on the surface as credible. The claim is dismissed as the landlord has not established the tenant has carelessly or intentionally caused the damage.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5496318 — Mould & damp at 5 Reponui Court, Rototuna North, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5496318 — Mould & damp at 5 Reponui Court, Rototuna North, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to floor?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to floor?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.